|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
No, the idea for lighter-than-air flight did not come from birds. There are no birds filled with hydrogen. (I was really hoping somebody would give an example of lighter-than-air flight in nature. )
ringo writes:
Flight - the idea for which came from birds. zepplins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
No, the idea for lighter-than-air flight did not come from birds. There are no birds filled with hydrogen. (I was really hoping somebody would give an example of lighter-than-air flight in nature. ) I think this owl might have the answer:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... (I was really hoping somebody would give an example of lighter-than-air flight in nature. ) Politicians. They are full of hot air and seldom are grounded in reality, but float in a bubble world of their own making. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You are doing your best to deny the escapable conclusion that evolution is not evidence of evolution, but your efforts are in vain.
------------------------------ Darwinist flourished before genetics came on the scene. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Bubbles are an idea from nature than might inspired flight via balloons. Or maybe even clouds. But this discussion is teetering on the inane.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
It's been inane ever since somebody suggested that intelligent design is a rational idea.
Bubbles are an idea from nature than might inspired flight via balloons. Or maybe even clouds. But this discussion is teetering on the innane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: You are doing your best to deny the escapable conclusion that evolution is not evidence of evolution, but your efforts are in vain. I have stated over and over that a nested hierarchy is evidence of evolution. Perhaps you should read my actual posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
(the existence of) A is not evidence for (the existence of) A.
Fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I'm going to change my previous answer to this question. I made the mistake of giving a definition for the Theory of Evolution rather than the WORD Evolution.
The word can at its most basic mean "change over time" but since this thread is within the Biological Evolution Forum I will take that as the context.
Definition: [Biological] Evolution is a heritable change in a population over time. Note: This is not a definition of theDarkRed Theory of Evolution for which see my definition inEvC Forum: How do you define the Theory of Evolution? But here's a thought. Epigenetic changes are heritable in some cases but do not change the DNA. Should these be considered evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Epigenetic changes are heritable in some cases but do not change the DNA. Should these be considered evolution? Since it is macroevolution that is at dispute in most conversations we should not include epigenetics since they produce very limited changes that disappear after a handful of generations. Epigenetics simply can't explain the differences we see between divergent species so it is a non-factor when discussing macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Since it is macroevolution that is at dispute in most conversations we should not include epigenetics since they produce very limited changes that disappear after a handful of generations. Epigenetics simply can't explain the differences we see between divergent species so it is a non-factor when discussing macroevolution. The we'll need to define macroevolution ... because you can bet some creationists get it wrong. eg -- what does "evolution above the species level" mean ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
but since this thread is within the Biological Evolution Forum I will take that as the context. Well that's something at least. Perhaps not all 800 or so posts have been a total waste. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
RAZD writes: The we'll need to define macroevolution ... because you can bet some creationists get it wrong. In my experience, humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is usually accepted by most creationists as an example of macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor is usually accepted by most creationists as an example of macroevolution. Because Humans are of one "kind" and apes from another ... so that type of evolution does not occur in their paradigm. Certainly it is according to scientific usage ...
quote: quote: Note that both these definitions say that the evolution is still within the breeding population and that what makes it macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over many generations. What we do NOT have is some mysterious morphing into a new and different species or a new and different "kind"by some unidentified process. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
As you said "There is no single "official" definition [of the TOE (scientific version).]" Neither is there any single "official" definition of micro or macroevolution.
Kirk Durston at least tried to provide precise definitions but those have been rejected by many here. Don't expect your definition to get universal acceptance. At least Durston's definitions could be applied to a speciation event, where genomes can be compared, to decide whether it was microevolution or macroevolution. Perhaps under Durston's definitions the Peppered Moth would be a case of macroevolution but I'm not aware that anyone has actually looked at it in this way (although AFAIK that produced only different varieties and not separate species). Edited by CRR, : Subtitle amended.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024